The Supreme Court rules that testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright and must be evaluated for truthful portions. Read this detailed analysis of the judgment in Dadu @ Ankush v. State of Madhya Pradesh, highlighting key legal principles and implications for criminal trials.
Introduction
In a significant ruling on December 8, the Supreme Court of India clarified an important principle regarding the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses. The Court held that a witness’s testimony cannot be rejected outright simply because the witness has been declared hostile. Instead, courts must carefully assess the portions of testimony that support either the prosecution or the defence and adopt those parts that appear truthful and consistent.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered this ruling while hearing an appeal filed by two individuals convicted under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Background
The prosecution claimed that the accused had approached the victim at her residence, pulled her dupatta, assaulted her brother, and committed the acts with knowledge of her belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Both the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld their convictions.
However, a key witness, PW-4, who was related to the victim and her brother, presented a different version. Though declared hostile by the prosecution, PW-4 stated that the altercation did not occur at the victim’s home but at a crowded Ganesh Puja pandal, where a quarrel began because the victim’s brother felt someone had stepped on his feet. PW-4 remained consistent throughout cross-examination and firmly denied the prosecution’s allegations about the accused’s conduct at the victim’s residence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Hostile Testimony Still Admissible
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had committed an error by discarding PW-4’s testimony solely on the ground that he was declared hostile. Justice Datta, authoring the judgment, reiterated that:
“The evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of either the prosecution or the accused. It must be subjected to closer scrutiny, and the portion that is consistent with the case may be accepted.”
The Court relied on the precedent set in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360, which clearly establishes that hostile witness testimony remains admissible.
The Bench emphasised that merely presenting an alternative version is not a valid ground to disregard a witness, especially when the witness has maintained consistency throughout the trial.
Outcome: Conviction Set Aside
Holding that the High Court acted contrary to established legal principles, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The Court concluded that the rejection of PW-4’s testimony was unjustified and that the evidence required a proper evaluation rather than outright dismissal.
Cause Title: Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces an essential principle in criminal jurisprudence: declaring a witness hostile does not erase the evidentiary value of their testimony. Courts must analyse such testimony carefully and adopt parts that appear genuine and consistent. The ruling strengthens fair trial standards and ensures that justice is not compromised by procedural labels.
Supreme Court Clarifies: Dying Declaration Valid Even If Death Is Not Imminent
